The Supreme Court on Monday refused bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the 2020 northeast Delhi riots case, observing that they occupied a “higher footing in the hierarchy of participation” in the alleged larger conspiracy.
A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Prasanna B Varale underscored that bail pleas cannot be examined collectively and that “the allegations against all the accused are not on equal footing.”
At the same time, the court granted conditional bail to five other accused—Gulfisha Fatima, Meeran Haider, Shifa Ur Rehman, Mohammad Salim Khan and Shadab Ahmad, noting that their roles stood on a different footing.
The accused, including Khalid, have been charged under Section 15 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), a stringent provision that defines a terrorist act as one committed “with intent to threaten or likely to threaten the unity, integrity, security, economic security, or sovereignty of India or with intent to strike terror or likely to strike terror in the people or any section of the people in India.”
The provision further specifies that such acts involve the use of “bombs, dynamite or other explosive substances or inflammable substances or firearms…or any other means.”
According to the prosecution, the accused conspired to organise “chakka jams”, or road blockades, which allegedly escalated into violence and therefore constituted a “terrorist act” within the meaning of the UAPA.
Mamdani Bats For Riot Accused Umar Khalid
The Supreme Court’s decision comes amid continued international attention to Khalid’s incarceration. New York City’s Indian-origin mayor, Zohran Mamdani, who became the city’s first Asian American and Muslim mayor last year, also expressed solidarity with jailed activist and former JNU student Umar Khalid and wrote a letter to him.
The note was handed over to Khalid’s parents during their visit to the United States in December 2025 and became public after Mamdani was sworn in as mayor. Khalid’s friend Banojyotsna Lahiri shared a photograph of the note 34-year-old Mamdani wrote to Khalid on social media platform X which read, “Dear Umar, I think of your words on bitterness often, and the importance of not letting it consume one’s self. It was a pleasure to meet your parents. We are all thinking of you.”
The note was shared publicly by Khalid’s partner, Banojyotsna Lahiri, who said Khalid’s parents, Sahiba Khanam and Syed Qasim Rasool Ilyas, were in the US to visit their daughter ahead of a family wedding. During that visit, they met Mamdani and spent time with him, after which he wrote the note for Khalid.
In a move seen as interference in India’s judicial process, eight US lawmakers also had written to India’s Ambassador in Washington seeking bail and a fair, timely trial for jailed activist Umar Khalid.
Led by US Representatives Jim McGovern and Jamie Raskin, the letter — seen as meddling in India’s judicial affairs — presses Indian authorities to grant bail to ‘Tukde Tukde’ activist Umar Khalid and to ensure that his trial commences without further delay. The letter is also signed by Chris Van Hollen, Peter Welch, Pramila Jayapal, Jan Schakowsky, Rashida Tlaib and Lloyd Doggett.
Emphasising the shared democratic character of the two nations, the lawmakers said both countries had a common interest in safeguarding freedom, the rule of law, human rights and pluralism, adding that “it is in this spirit” that they were raising concerns over Khalid’s detention.
The lawmakers pointed out that Khalid “has been detained without bail for five years for charges levied under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, which independent human rights experts have warned may contravene international standards of equality before the law, due process and proportionality.”
They said they were aware that the matter was pending before the Supreme Court and welcomed reports that Khalid had been granted temporary bail to attend his sister’s wedding.
The question now is what course figures like New York City mayor Zohran Mamdani and the eight US lawmakers who wrote to India’s ambassador will adopt—whether they recalibrate their stance in deference to India’s judicial process, or persist with advocacy that increasingly risks being seen as intrusion.
Public expressions of solidarity, such as Mamdani’s handwritten note to Khalid, have so far been framed as moral support rather than political intervention.
However, when elected officials weigh in on an ongoing criminal process in another sovereign country, the line between solidarity and interference becomes blurred. The letter from eight US representatives urging bail and a “fair, timely trial” went further, directly engaging with India’s legal proceedings while the matter was sub judice.
The sustained interest of American lawmakers in Khalid’s case appears to stem from a broader ideological framing—one that views the Delhi riots prosecutions primarily through the lens of civil liberties and dissent.
For progressive political actors in the US, Khalid has been positioned less as an accused in a criminal conspiracy and more as a symbol of perceived democratic backsliding. This framing, however, selectively abstracts the case from the specific statutory regime under which it is being tried, particularly the UAPA, and from the factual findings repeatedly recorded by Indian courts at multiple levels.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court’s decision places the onus back where it belongs—within India’s judicial system.
If Mamdani and the US lawmakers truly claim respect for democratic institutions, the logical course would be to acknowledge the authority of India’s courts, even while disagreeing with their conclusions. Persisting with advocacy after a reasoned order from the apex court risks reinforcing the perception that the concern is not due process per se, but the outcome itself. In a world of sovereign democracies, respect for the rule of law must include accepting judicial decisions—even when they are inconvenient to one’s narrative.
Khalid’s Role In Delhi Riots
Umar Khalid, a former student activist, was arrested in September 2020 in connection with the violence that erupted in northeast Delhi in February that year during protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act. Investigators allege that Khalid was part of a broader conspiracy to incite or orchestrate the violence.
He has been charged under several provisions of the UAPA, along with offences relating to rioting, unlawful assembly and promoting enmity between groups. The prosecution claims Khalid played a role in mobilising protests that later turned violent. Khalid has denied the allegations, asserting that he is being targeted for his political speech and activism.
Khalid was granted interim bail by Delhi court last month from December 16 to 29 to attend his sister’s wedding and he surrendered himself at Delhi’s Tihar jail on Sunday, December 29, after completing his period.